Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that The intuition that Bush 'might not have existed' is fully accommodated as the truth that Bush might have been non-concrete, not non-existent.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
The intuition 'Bush might not have existed' semantically targets existence itself, not the derivative property of concreteness.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Redefining non-existence as non-concreteness obscures rather than illuminates what makes modal statements about people meaningful.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Abstract objects (numbers, propositions) don't satisfy 'might not have existed' intuitions, so non-concreteness doesn't capture the modal sense.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Concreteness and existence are logically distinct properties; something can exist abstractly without being concrete.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Modal intuitions about non-existence are often confused; reinterpreting them as concreteness variation preserves intuitive content.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
This framework avoids counterintuitive commitment that merely possible objects don't exist in any sense whatsoever.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.